JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, a lower Division Clerk in the Haryana State Electricity Board, impugns the award of the Labour Court by which his challenge to the order of punishment was rejected and claims a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Board to restore his two increments stopped vide order dated August 18, 1981. He also claims full wages for the period during which he remained under suspension viz. January 18, 1979 to November 18, 1979.
(2.) THE Board contests the petitioner's claim primarily on the ground that he had filed a civil suit on February 25, 1983 for declaration that the suspension and stoppage of the annual increments of the plaintiff is illegal and -. . . . . . . is entitled for damages, cost of the suit and two annual increments with full back wages of suspension period. . . . ". This suit was dismissed by the Civil Court vide judgment dated December 22, 1984. The petitioner's claim having been declined by the civil Court and he having allowed the judgment and decree to attain finality, the labour Court as well as this court cannot now interfere in the matter and grant the same reliefs to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard, Mr. Des Raj Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily contended that the Board had ordered the stoppage of the petitioners two increments with cumulative effect without holding an enquiry and without following the procedure prescribed for the imposition of a major penalty. He submits that this order was totally illegal. The petitioner had challenged this order before the civil court. Without going into the merits of the controversy or the issues arising in the case, the civil court had rejected the petitioner's claim on the untenable ground of res judicata and held that since the petitioner had approached the labour court Under Section 33c (2) for the award of wages for the period of suspension, he cannot he permitted to now challenge the order of stoppage of two increments. Learned counsel submits that these orders being illegal and the petitioner's claim having not been decided on merits, the impugned action cannot be sustained.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. O. P. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the decree of the civil court having attained finality, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.;